This is the city: Los Angeles, California. I work here. I'm an ex-mayor. Los Angeles is a magnet for people from all over the world. Some of them run for public office. Inevitably some of them stray from the golden rule and rule for those that have the gold. That's when I go to work. My name is Yorty. I'm a dead pol.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Eric Garcetti vs LAUSD and the Parents and Kids

There is a school site at Alverado and Santa Ynez, but Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti doesn't support a school for the kids and does not want to build a school there. Why would he? No profitable angle?

Some people in the area moved and LAUSD bought the land. They are going to build a school there. But Garcetti said he won’t allow it because of traffic, cultural and historic aspects!?!? What a bunch of B.S.!

He wants to cancel the school project because he does not want it there. And he does not support the parents who want the school. Garcetti wants the land available so a developer can develop it. Watch his favorite non-profit, LA Neighborhood Land Trust, decide they want to buy it for a park -- then end up developing housing units or any commercial project except a school. (WHATEVER ELSE THE LAND IS USED FOR WON'T AFFECT THE CULTURE AND HISTORY, EXCEPT A SCHOOL...LOL!]

Why is Eric being unsupportive of the children in the neighborhood? IF HE SAID HE WANTS TO USE IT FOR DEVELOPMENT…What better use than a school?

Some people ZD has spoken to over this issue (the ones who contacted me over fear of losing a needed school in the area) feels Garcetti has his own agenda and purpose for the land: Development. The land will become available and put up for development for a park or housing or anything commercial they feel like, restaurants and shopping, when the priority are the kids and the schools. It’s called a “land grab”.

Eric Garcetti is the President of the Council and he is the Councilman in the area. He is neither anti-education or pro-development. He is simply a quality Councilman, who happens to be a brilliant Rhodes Scholar, who cares deeply about his district. His entire record bears that out.

So, why is this fool, who seems to dominate this blog with sheer nonsense, being allowed to drown out your posts and those of Joseph Mailander, both of whom we greatly enjoy? It is time to cut him loose to do his own thing away from here on some other site.

Zuma, another take---there are already too many schools for the kind of future we are speeding towards. Do you see a future LA where everyone in Garcetti's District is going to have two-point-four kids? My opinion: we should have put a lid on school building long ago.

There are lots of bond-issue buzzwords that inspire the public to vote YES: schools, libraries, prisons, affordable housing. But we really need to upgrade what we have, which will keep developers and contractors just as flush, more than we need to keep pretending along with the Mayor that "growth is inevitable."

Thanks for those points. I like the idea of renovating existing buildings and using them for schools.

Eric mentioned heritage/history reasons -- not any of the philosophic reasons you bring up.

I do think, however, if they are going "condo-crazy" and going to build all these skyscrapers and density housing, I HOPE some new schools will be considered to accomadate the added kids. (And they ARE coming.)

What caused me to post this item is that I don't believe the reason Eric doesn't want the school built is because of the reasons he is stating.

He didn't say anything about LAUSD making use of what we have or general philosophy.

Maybe if he said, "Although school facilites are a top priority for the city, we already have abundant space for new schools in the form of currently un-used buildings that can be converted into schools at a much lower cost. With that said, although a newly constructed school on that property is an option, I would like to recommend some other possible ideas, that you may not be aware the property may ultimatley be allowed to be used for that could benefit the entire community in some other ways that you may place a high value on, as well. I would like to mention some of these potential options...

CHALLENGE IS: LAUSD doesn't want to upgrade/convert existing buildings, because there isn't as much money to be made as in all the boondoggling that occurs in new construction projects...

And, it is my opinion that the reason politicians do not want to build a new school, is because that is state money that they can't jump in on; and there's no money to be made off a non-commerical entitey like a school.

AND ZD SAYS...THE STATE BETTER STOP ASSUMING PEOPLE ARE GONNA KEEP HANDING OVER MORE MONEY FOR THESE FRONT-END LOADED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. They factor it into the formula as if it's a given that voters will approve an infinite number of bonds.

So this post is about politicans using "warm and fuzzy" spin to cover up other intentions.

So I guess we will see. Meanwhile, remember Joe and the other insightful posters...I mean remember Joe...

not everyone in the community is as wise and knowlegable as you are...the perception is just, "How come Eric is trying to stop us from building the school we need?"

Regarding this and other schools being needlessly driven forward by the Districts facilities division, please research local demographics in the area before playing "the kid card". Echo Park, thankfully will have no more year round schools as of fall 2007. This is due to declining enrollments caused by various factors (gentrification, less children per family, etc). All schools will be traditional calendar. Logan Elementary School is 50% vacant. Elysian Heights the same. Justification for a 59 million dollar elementary school construction project, to line the pockets of contractors is criminal when schools are using outdated materials and have leaky pipes and asbestos issues. Lets focus where the real problems are-the District. CP Garcetti has always supported schools but saw this one as what it is-an LAUSD Landgrab of Echo Parks most vital, transit oriented, pedestrian accessed Community Center (See Echo Park Silver Lake Community Plan). There has been much discussion of what to do with the now "vacant space" on many of the local school campuses by school board officials. Now who's a developer? Schools are needed throughout the City, just not in this poorly chosen, manipulated location. Kudos to the Council President for standing up to LAUSD's bulldozers. okay, off the Soapbox.\christine

no need to apologize for being on a soapbox...that was a good post. I have some issue with some of it, but I mean...a least it was substantive.

RE: please research local demographics. You are right! And perhaps community members who contacted me were basing it off of "emotions" rather than "logic", which unfortunatley is how people form opinions.

Keep in mind, declining population may increase with all the density housing being constructed over the next several years.

BUT...I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW ON THIS ISSUE...ZD DOES see both sides, and OF COURSE i feel LAUSD is all about the construction money. So I think the issue I am concerned about is politician BS double talk.

1:34pm sums it up. And 1:34pm...WHO ARE YOU...you SLAYED that...haven't seen that level posting here yet. So if you are a usual, i guess it even drives the point home harder that he ain't fooling anyone.

and you should also keep in mind, LAUSD already bought and owns the land. and i didn't know council had authority over LAUSD? So can the project even be stopped now?

And regarding the declining population, something else to consider is these schools are used for kids who can be bussed outside the area to. I know the NIMBYs don't like to hear that...but you have to evaluate the bigger CITYWIDE issue.

Hey 3:47pm...would it be insecure of me to post 1:34pm's comment as a main thread. Lemme know!

And thanks for letting me know I hit a soft-spot/nerve. Better keep this whole LA Neighborhood Land Trust/LAUSD site on the front burner. The people who told me about it must have been right.

Mailander and some of the others are right on this: there simply is no need for another school in that district, as many have declining enrollments. On the other hand, there is not one decent middle or high school on the westside anymore.

Paul Revere/Pali High in Palisades are the best, although pretty ruined by busing/affirmative action stuff, so that not only has quality gone down, but locals are told they can't be guaranteed admission cuz they tend to be too white, and the school needs diversity management.

Emerson in Westwood, etc., are all hellholes, full of kids bused in as no one local goes; a few venture in, having no choice, but flee after the first year if they can.

It's actually the "rich" westside which is underserved for schools; but that's not PC, they keep sticking new schools into Eastside, so good for Garcetti, saying "no thanks." Wish the westside had that "problem."

If they had these schools on the Westside, FOR THE Locals, people would actually care about LAUSD.

As it is, my/our only concern is, how much more money going to be wasted educated other people's -- largely Hispanics and illegals -- kids? Money we need to fight gangs and crime and plan for anti-terrorism (we're SO behind NYC in both local and federal funds) and hire cops...

so not on his behalf. Perhaps in spite of him??? We have fought this ill planned school since 2004-when all schools were year round but demograpically "trending" towards traditional calendar. Now, with all Echo Park Schools "traditional" we ask? why 59 million dollars for an elementary school? Campaign contributor kickback? Future Charter School (Tokofsky's baby remember?), Land grab? and on and on.

But an 875 seat Elementary School, don't think so. Building and Safety hit them with a "Cease and Desist" today as they unsafely demoed 2 commercial properties, under the radar. And on and on..............The real story is, who, iif anyone buys LAUSD's 750 a sq foot cost for new school construction. Can anyone spell "kickback"? Even hospitals are built for under 400 per sf. This is scandalous. So, ZD, go after that story. We, as tax payers who bought into Measure "y" more schools need to know.